Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Standard Citation	AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248; [1978] 2 SCR 621
Bench Strength	7-Judge Bench; 6:1 Majority (with detailed procedural interpretations unanimously accepted following the Attorney General's statement, though Justice P.S. Kailasam dissented on specific constitutional interpretations regarding the extra-territorial application of Article 19)
Key Judges	M. Hameedullah Beg (CJI); P.N. Bhagwati (Authored the leading majority opinion); P.S. Kailasam (Dissenting judge)
Date of Judgment	25/01/1978
Core Provisions	Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India; Sections 3, 5, 6, 10(3)(c), and 10(5) of the Passports Act, 1967

`The Core Question of Law`

<aside> 💡

The Analytical Shift: When framing an essay on Article 21, map out the jurisprudential shift from the literal, positivist reading of "procedure established by law" in A.K. Gopalan (1950) to the substantive, due-process-oriented expansion in Maneka Gandhi (1978).
Connecting Precedents: Do not treat Maneka Gandhi as an isolated break from tradition. Explain how it built upon the foundational shift initiated in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) (Bank Nationalization case), which originally discarded the mutual exclusivity doctrine regarding property rights.
Common Analytical Mistakes to Avoid: * Avoid stating that the Supreme Court formally introduced the American "Substantme Due Process" clause into Article 21. The Court carefully avoided importing the phrase itself; instead, it read the requirements of fairness, justice, and reasonableness directly into the words "procedure established by law".
- Avoid writing that Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act was declared unconstitutional or struck down. The Court upheld the provision by reading into it the implied requirement of a post-decisional hearing.
Applying the Ratio: Use this case when testing any state action that involves procedural shortcuts or administrative silence. Cite Maneka Gandhi to demonstrate that any administrative action impacting personal liberty must be quasi-judicial, reasoned, and non-arbitrary under the combined mandate of the Golden Triangle (Articles 14, 19, and 21). </aside>